State to take closer look at tolls on I-93

L

Lrfox

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
3,047
Reaction score
1,327
State to take closer look at tolls on I-93

May 19, 2008 01:26 PM

By Noah Bierman, Globe Staff

Governor Deval Patrick's top transportation official signaled today that he wants to take a closer look at adding tolls on Interstate 93, but stopped well short of endorsing that method for raising more money for the state.

The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority will count the number of vehicles on the Zakim Bridge and at other major points on I-93 at the request of Transportation Secretary Bernard Cohen. The data will help determine whether tolls are a viable option.
jacobs_cohen_1.jpg.jpgTransportation Secretary Bernard Cohen

"Everything is on the table here and we need to look in all corners," Cohen said today at the board?s monthly meeting. "Whether we will find the money in all corners, I don't know. But we need to look in all corners."

Cohen, who also chairs the turnpike board, made the comments during a discussion about possible changes in the state?s tolling system. There are currently tolls on the east-west Massachusetts Turnpike, Tobin Bridge, and tunnels beneath Boston Harbor, but not on I-93, the main north-south thoroughfare.

When asked after the meeting whether the traffic count was a signal he was ready to consider tolls on I-93, Cohen said, "It just means that I want to have as complete a picture as possible."

A Toll Equity Working Group convened by the turnpike board reported it has reached no conclusions about how to equalize payments for drivers, but it presented a roster of 37 options. A final analysis is due in July. The board will spend the summer evaluating a broad list of possible changes.

"If you look at the matrix, there are 37 possible tolling options," said Cohen, who stressed that he is not moving in the direction of tolling on I-93. "As far as I'm concerned, they're all on an even playing field."

Given federal regulations and local concerns about bottlenecks, it is unlikely that any new tolls booths will be installed on I-93. There is the potential, however, for some type of electronic tolling. Possible locations include the Zakim Bridge and the south end of the Tip O'Neill Tunnel.

Adding tolls to I-93 has been discussed for years, but it is usually avoided by politicians who fear the wrath of the driving public. The addition of any form of tolling along I-93 would require federal approval.
Click to expand...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/05/state_to_take_c.html

The discussion thread responses at Boston.com are pretty predictable (surprisingly, no one wants to pay more!), but there are a few supporters in there. It's worth checking out.
 
Tolls on 93 are a great idea. It would get more cars off the road and on to mass transit as well as raising money for the state. Of course people don't want to pay more, but fuck them, auto commuters have been getting a free ride for too long (as well as polluting Somerville and Dorchester idling in traffic).
 
If only the Commonwealth would stop spending money on pork we wouldn't need tolls. I would give the socialist pigs the choice between the state income tax or tolls - can't be both.
 
I'm surprised there aren't tolls on 93 already. NYC has a toll before everything that's not a 2-lane road, even Baltimore charges for its dinky harbor tunnels. Here in Boston we have the most massive, complex piece of infrastructure in US history...and people get to use it for free?? This is a no brainer, billions of dollars were spent so that auto commuters could have a faster ride, now it's their turn to pay up. Tolls can help contribute to the massive funds needed to maintain the tunnels/bridges, and most importantly create a new source of revenue for PUBLIC TRANSIT! A large chunk of any toll revenue should go straight to improving public transit!!
 
By "pork" do you mean the Green Line extension. or Fall River/New Bedford, or some other rail or road project?
 
BigE said:
If only the Commonwealth would stop spending money on pork we wouldn't need tolls. I would give the socialist pigs the choice between the state income tax or tolls - can't be both.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what pork is. Pork are projects that each state has that their senators get the cash for from the Feds. Pork paid for the Big Dig, subway expansions, and numerous other projects. It is a bad system but it works.

Pork pays for the building but not the upkeep. Tolls are a good answer. I know! Lets put tolls at the NH border; live free of die?
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
Tolls on 93 are a great idea. It would get more cars off the road and on to mass transit as well as raising money for the state. Of course people don't want to pay more, but fuck them, auto commuters have been getting a free ride for too long (as well as polluting Somerville and Dorchester idling in traffic).
Click to expand...

This is what I said (a bit more eloquently) twice in the Boston.com discussions and, as expected, caught a bunch of flack from the majority of posters. It seems the commuters from the 'burbs don't understand that not only do many of the bigger cities in this country charge tolls on their highways (including almost every entrance and exit to NYC), but BOSTON charges on 90, 1 (outbound), and the tunnels to East Boston. It doesn't help the perception of it that the media is setting this up like the state is robbing everyone at knife point, but the negative reaction is worse than I expected.

The toll would definitely be a good thing.
 
In my opinion, the real question is why the state would enact these tolls. It could be argued (and has been) that mass transit is tolled in the form of fares, while freeways have no such added cost to the user (on top of normal taxes). On the other hand, the government (in some fashion) collects a gas tax, which could be construed as equivalent to the fare system.

What is being presented here is a different motivation: one of behavior modification. The assumption that if highways cost more to use people will use mass transit seems a bit flawed to me. What you do in the short term, of course, is piss a lot of people off, as Boston.com seems to illustrate. In the longer term, people might slowly change their habits, but many suburban commuters (the people this is really going to effect) have no access to transit.

At that point, it is plausible that the public would clamor for T expansions, lowering the NIMBY barrier for those projects. The problem I see is that highway toll money will go to the highway authorities, in the same way T fares fund T improvements. The T will see none of this money, and while they might have an increase in revenue from former drivers, it will still claim it has no money to proceed on the expansions leaving us with pissed off suburbanites forced to pay exorbitant tolls.

If one believes that the state government even has the right to tax solely for the purposes of behavior modification (I don't), enacting those tolls would necessitate a reorganization of MA transportation agencies, which really ought to happen anyway. The MBTA, MHD, MTA would combine into a single transportation authority (possibly also with Massport) and take over the DCR parkways. This authority could properly distribute toll funds and coordinate improvements.

Frankly, though, the best argument for the tolls is that drivers from the west and northeast are currently taxed in ways drivers from the north and south are not. Parity demands either no tolls for anyone or tolls for everyone, especially since most of those toll funds (the Turnpike tolls) go to maintain the north-south artery. BTW, I thought Deval had promised to remove most of the tolls...
 
It's a double eged sword. Charging money to enter and exit Boston will make many people to decide to not come into Boston for something casual. And there will be lost revenue for buisness in Boston. Also don't kid yourself the T sucks, really when you compare the the two, driving in or taking the T. One is much better than the other, and thats if the T is running on scheduele. If you don't want to hurt Boston business then it would best to expand and enhance the T while you are also trying to deter driving into Boston.
 
In reality the funds from any tolls would most likely go to fixing the highway or into general highway funds. This being the case I think it is only fair to charge the drivers who erode these roads by driving on them every day.
 
I think we should outlaw cars. Cuz really, who needs em? Ima go outside and set mine on fire rite now in teh middle of da night, riding teh bus to teh train everyday is hella more fun.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
I don't think you understand what pork is. Pork are projects that each state has that their senators get the cash for from the Feds. Pork paid for the Big Dig, subway expansions, and numerous other projects. It is a bad system but it works.

Pork pays for the building but not the upkeep. Tolls are a good answer. I know! Lets put tolls at the NH border; live free of die?
Click to expand...

My post was a knee jerk reaction but the projects were already paid for with tax dollars and almost all of it from the feds. The money from the tolls don't exactly go directly into fixing a pot hole, rather, the money goes to a massive state budget which is later divided among the numerous projects from toilets at a rest area off the highway to the upkeep of sidewalks in a small state park in some long forgotten corner of a suburban town.

I am not against the tolls in principle but what divides us from other states is our spending and our income tax. I think there should be $8 tolls for commuters from New Hampshire. Why not? So many Massachusetts folks moved up there to avoid our taxes (only to destroy NH's conservatism) and still benefit from the jobs in Boston. They should pay tolls.
 
Get rid of all tolls along the Pike for residents, put tolls on all the cross border traffic. New Hampshire profits greater from all the gross border shopping and people who work here and live there to avoid taxes. Residents of the Commonwealth deserve relief from being squeezed, those who are benefiting from the state and not paying any taxes should have to chip in a bit.
 
New Hampshire residents that work in Massachusetts pay the same 5+% as you and I. Everyone pays it, if you play for the Red Sox and live in California, you pay it.
 
Anyway I don't think you could put tolls on 93 or 3 at the New Hampshire border and have them be successful . Too many secondary roads between the two states.

3A in Tyngsboro would be a PAHH-kin lot!
 
Okay, this is as good a time as any to mention something I don't think many people are aware of. The way I understand it, I-93 South used to be closed every morning, during rush hour. The only ways into the city from the North were over the Tobin Bridge, the tunnels, or Route 99. This was true until the mid-1970's?

Can anyone corroborate this?
 
Errr, as a general policy, I don't think you can introduce tolls on interstate highways that were paid for out of the Federal Highway Trust Fund.

See link below to a policy allowing exceptions to general prohibition against converting to tolls (I'm assuming this is still DOT policy).

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/TEA21/tollpilt.htm
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top